This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Has Obama been a "Great" US President? (in your personal opinion)?

Originally Posted by plutonium

with the republican congress what do you expect from the prez..he cannot do anything he wants to improve life in the usa...I guess he would be a great president if he does everything the house wants him to do ....lol

The problem is...most of the things he wants to do to "improve life in the usa"...won't. So, we should be applauding the Republican Congress. And, while he will never be a great President, if he had at least worked with the House for the last 5 years, he would have been adequate.

TANSTAAFL
-I don't trust a man who talks about ethics when he's picking my pocket.- Time Enough For Love - Robert A Heinlein
My avatar created by Feliza Estrada estrada.feliza@yahoo.com

At the cost of greater government control and loss of choice. Not a good trade-off, if you ask me. It's like saying the government should dictate how everyone's life should be...because it'll help them.

Keeping the US / North America auto industry from total failure didn't improve anyone's life?

Pushing a stimulus program that temporarily offered big tax breaks, and employed a few million Americans, improved no one's life?

The government has no business picking winners and losers...no matter how big they are. Too big to fail only excuses and encourages bad business decisions...or less control for businesses on decisions the government allows them to make and, again, more government control.

Cutting the deficit by 2/3 since its peak (a peak caused by Bush 43's tax cuts, 2 wars and a massive drop in tax revenues from the worst economic downturn in 80 years) helps no one? Fascinating.

If you were being honest, this should be credited to the Republicans. Without their opposition to the numerous spending schemes Obama and the Democrats have wanted and dragging Obama, kicking and screaming, to cutting spending, our deficit would have skyrocketed. Also, it seems to me those two wars are still going on...as well as a bunch of others Obama has started.

Providing undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship? The horror!!!

While letting those illegal aliens (let's call a spade a spade, shall we?) keep on coming and not making much of an effort to stem the tide. Illegal aliens don't need a path to citizenship...beyond the path provided by our existing laws...they need a path out of our country.

Not everything he's done is fantabulous, neither is everything he wanted to do. But it sure looks like some of what he was able to get done has improved the lives of many Americans.

Re: Has Obama been a "Great" US President? (in your personal opinion)?

Originally Posted by Mycroft

At the cost of greater government control and loss of choice. Not a good trade-off, if you ask me.

Government interference hasn't bankrupted any insurers or hospitals or doctors or pharmaceuticals. It isn't preventing millions from getting care; in fact, it's helping people who were redlined out of the system get care. The quality of care in the US has not deteriorated.

Seems like a decent trade-off to me. It'd be better if we went single-payer, but c'est la guerre.

The government has no business picking winners and losers...etc

Fun fact! Deregulation is what produces systems that are "too big to fail." Government intervention didn't make GM and Chrysler big (in fact, it helped them shrink), and didn't force Ford to use the same suppliers as Chrysler and GM. Deregulation directly resulted in banks so big and interconnected, that the failure of one major investment bank threw the global financial system into turmoil.

Meanwhile, government actions occasionally break up companies that are too big (AT&T) or prevent companies from getting too big (Comcast-TW).

So, which do you want? Regulation, that often prevents industries from being too big to fail? Or deregulation, which encourages it?

And yes, sometimes governments should intervene, when a critical industry is at stake, or a monopoly gets abusive, or companies fail to provide safe products.

If you were being honest, this should be credited to the Republicans. Without their opposition to the numerous spending schemes Obama and the Democrats have wanted and dragging Obama, kicking and screaming, to cutting spending, our deficit would have skyrocketed.

lol... No, I don't think so.

The Republicans did not draft the budget single-handedly, and did not want (for example) the sequestration cuts. They screamed that those cuts were "Obama's fault," remember? Meanwhile, Obama had talked about cutting the deficit from day 1 in office.

Also, it seems to me those two wars are still going on...as well as a bunch of others Obama has started.

Then you're seeming wrong. We are basically out of Iraq and almost out of Afghanistan. We are certainly not spending anywhere near the kind of money and manpower as we were at the height of those conflicts.

And what wars did Obama "start?" Did he start the civil strife in Libya? Nope, the Libyans did that. Did he encourage Syrians to revolt against the Assad regime? Nope.

While letting those illegal aliens (let's call a spade a spade, shall we?) keep on coming and not making much of an effort to stem the tide.

And yet, the rate of illegal immigration flatlined during his term, and has not increased. Spending on ICE has in fact increased, and he ordered a more strict form of deportations.... Go figure.

Illegal aliens don't need a path to citizenship...beyond the path provided by our existing laws...they need a path out of our country.

Sorry dude, but they are not going anywhere.

At this point, kicking out all the undocumented immigrants is the equivalent of kicking out the entire population of Kansas. It's not going to happen.

Anemic economic growth

3.5% is not "anemic," it's actually pretty good. Even JeB! is only promising 4%. [Note: Any president has very limited ability to impact GDP.]

stagnant wages

Wages have been largely stagnant since the 1970s. In fact, they are now ticking up a bit; plus, Obama has pushed visibly for increases in minimum wages. [Of course, wages are another factor over which any President doesn't have much control.]

less hours worked

That's actually a good thing.

prices that keep inflating...

Where, in Fantasyland?

Inflation has been very low during Obama's term in office, including a touch of deflation.

people's lives aren't "improving", they are "hanging on".

Uh huh

- Consumer confidence is hitting 11-year highs
- Crime is down
- We're basically back at full employment
- Labor force participation rate, which started declining in 2001, has been flat for about 18 months
- Wages are finally coming up a little bit
- Stock markets are doing very well
- Real estate is recovering and even getting frothy in some markets, despite significantly stricter lending requirements
- The number of uninsured is near or at its lowest point since we started keeping track
- All this is happening while the EU and China are having economic issues

Is everything peachy keen? Definitely not. Would it be peachy if Obama got his way with every policy. No. But things are getting better for millions of Americans, and some of that is due to Obama's policies, which were passed in spite of a highly polarized Congress.

Re: Has Obama been a "Great" US President? (in your personal opinion)?

Originally Posted by Visbek

Government interference hasn't bankrupted any insurers or hospitals or doctors or pharmaceuticals. It isn't preventing millions from getting care; in fact, it's helping people who were redlined out of the system get care. The quality of care in the US has not deteriorated.

Seems like a decent trade-off to me. It'd be better if we went single-payer, but c'est la guerre.

Fun fact! Deregulation is what produces systems that are "too big to fail." Government intervention didn't make GM and Chrysler big (in fact, it helped them shrink), and didn't force Ford to use the same suppliers as Chrysler and GM. Deregulation directly resulted in banks so big and interconnected, that the failure of one major investment bank threw the global financial system into turmoil.

Meanwhile, government actions occasionally break up companies that are too big (AT&T) or prevent companies from getting too big (Comcast-TW).

So, which do you want? Regulation, that often prevents industries from being too big to fail? Or deregulation, which encourages it?

And yes, sometimes governments should intervene, when a critical industry is at stake, or a monopoly gets abusive, or companies fail to provide safe products.

lol... No, I don't think so.

The Republicans did not draft the budget single-handedly, and did not want (for example) the sequestration cuts. They screamed that those cuts were "Obama's fault," remember? Meanwhile, Obama had talked about cutting the deficit from day 1 in office.

Then you're seeming wrong. We are basically out of Iraq and almost out of Afghanistan. We are certainly not spending anywhere near the kind of money and manpower as we were at the height of those conflicts.

And what wars did Obama "start?" Did he start the civil strife in Libya? Nope, the Libyans did that. Did he encourage Syrians to revolt against the Assad regime? Nope.

And yet, the rate of illegal immigration flatlined during his term, and has not increased. Spending on ICE has in fact increased, and he ordered a more strict form of deportations.... Go figure.

Sorry dude, but they are not going anywhere.

At this point, kicking out all the undocumented immigrants is the equivalent of kicking out the entire population of Kansas. It's not going to happen.

3.5% is not "anemic," it's actually pretty good. Even JeB! is only promising 4%. [Note: Any president has very limited ability to impact GDP.]

Wages have been largely stagnant since the 1970s. In fact, they are now ticking up a bit; plus, Obama has pushed visibly for increases in minimum wages. [Of course, wages are another factor over which any President doesn't have much control.]

That's actually a good thing.

Where, in Fantasyland?

Inflation has been very low during Obama's term in office, including a touch of deflation.

Uh huh

- Consumer confidence is hitting 11-year highs
- Crime is down
- We're basically back at full employment
- Labor force participation rate, which started declining in 2001, has been flat for about 18 months
- Wages are finally coming up a little bit
- Stock markets are doing very well
- Real estate is recovering and even getting frothy in some markets, despite significantly stricter lending requirements
- The number of uninsured is near or at its lowest point since we started keeping track
- All this is happening while the EU and China are having economic issues

Is everything peachy keen? Definitely not. Would it be peachy if Obama got his way with every policy. No. But things are getting better for millions of Americans, and some of that is due to Obama's policies, which were passed in spite of a highly polarized Congress.

Your cheerleading for more and more big government doesn't impress me...and it certainly doesn't impress the majority of Americans. If it did, Obama wouldn't have approval rating that have been in the tank since the Democrats got shellacked in 2010.

In any case, most of these improvements you've laid at Obama's feet are improvements we've seen in spite of Obama. Take that "Consumer confidence is hitting 11-year highs", for example. That is primarily because of falling gas prices. Sorry, but Obama had nothing to do with that. In fact, if he'd had his way gas prices would be a LOT higher than they are now.

Just think how good things would be if Obama had just done his job and enforced the law and not try to "fix" things.

TANSTAAFL
-I don't trust a man who talks about ethics when he's picking my pocket.- Time Enough For Love - Robert A Heinlein
My avatar created by Feliza Estrada estrada.feliza@yahoo.com

Re: Has Obama been a "Great" US President? (in your personal opinion)?

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Your cheerleading for more and more big government doesn't impress me...and it certainly doesn't impress the majority of Americans. If it did, Obama wouldn't have approval rating that have been in the tank since the Democrats got shellacked in 2010.

In any case, most of these improvements you've laid at Obama's feet are improvements we've seen in spite of Obama. Take that "Consumer confidence is hitting 11-year highs", for example. That is primarily because of falling gas prices. Sorry, but Obama had nothing to do with that. In fact, if he'd had his way gas prices would be a LOT higher than they are now.

Just think how good things would be if Obama had just done his job and enforced the law and not try to "fix" things.

I shutter to think. Certainly wouldn't wanna go back in time, before Obama. Obama's done a pretty good job as far as I'm concerned. But you can keep hatin'. That's cool.

It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative" Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

Re: Has Obama been a "Great" US President? (in your personal opinion)?

Originally Posted by Captain America

I shutter to think. Certainly wouldn't wanna go back in time, before Obama. Obama's done a pretty good job as far as I'm concerned. But you can keep hatin'. That's cool.

How's he doing with ISIS, Libya, Syria, Turkey, Egypt? How's our zero growth economy, Wall Street supported by Fed pumping? Hows that low unemployment rate backed up by 92 million out of the labor market? Finally, hows the longest recovery from recession in our history, even longer than the depression?

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Attributed to Alexander Tytler